More Evidence That Airplanes Can't Bring Down Buildings

According to this story, an airplane hit a building in Terhan, killing at least 116 people as of the latest update. But, the tower, even though it
was on fire, the tanks of the planes were mostly full, etc., etc., etc., DID NOT COLLAPSE! Compare that to WTC Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane,
and yet collapsed do to fire.

I guess whoever designed the World Trade Center buildings should go to Iran to study their apartent building construction techniques. Because, you
know, apparently they do it a whole lot better than we do. I mean, a C-130, which is the type of plane that hit the building, is designed to carry
tanks and military equipment, and is bigger than the planes that hit the World Trade Center Towers. I'm interested to hear supporters of the
government's version of this story is.

According to this story, an airplane hit a building in Terhan, killing at least 116 people as of the latest update. But, the tower, even though it
was on fire, the tanks of the planes were mostly full, etc., etc., etc., DID NOT COLLAPSE! Compare that to WTC Tower 7, which was not hit by a plane,
and yet collapsed do to fire.

By 'tower' I assume you mean the 10 storey building which (in the words of the reporter if you watch the video clip) clipped the
building while trying to make an emergency landing (this means he was going slow to anyone that hasn't flown).

So it's unfair to point out that a 10 story building, "clipped" by a plane, but still caught fire, and there were explosions, and jet fuel inside
the building did not cause a collapse in this case, but fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers causeing building 7 to collapse, which had
no jet fuel inside it.

And by the way, saying that it "clipped" the building is also a bit misleading. It's not like it was part of a wing that hit the building.

Here's a quote form the Scotsmen:

Witnesses initially said the C-130 transport hit the top of the building, but officials, including Police Chief Mortaza Talaei, later said one wing of
the plane hit the second floor as the fuselage crashed to ground at the foot of the building, gouging out a huge crater and causing a fire that
quickly spread throughout the structure.

Shouldn't this building have collapsed due to the fire, like tower 7 did? I don't think the comparison is unfair at all. While it may not
reporduce the attacks of 9/11 perfectly, I think it does cast some more doubts on the official story.

That building also looks to be made of concrete and not steel.
So what you have is a building of different construction, different materials, of different size and hit by an aircraft at a much slower speed and not
head on.

you cant compare the two, the 757's were flying at over 500 knots, the Iranian cargo plane (I guess a C130) was traveling at probably 180 knots. The
757 had two to maybe three times the amount of fuel on board, maybe more. The kentic energy of the 757 compared to the Iranian cargo plane was
probably on the magnitude of 200 times more. The total energy, thermal and kentic on the point of impact of the 757 into the towers compared to the
cargo plane was probably 1,000 times greater.

Tower 7 fell after being bombarded by millions of tons of concrete and steel weakening the entire structure of building 7, the resulting fire torched
all the interior structures which were weakend by the debris of tower 2 ? and since the fire burnt for many hours, resulted in the failure of some of
the steel support structures and the building collapsed under its own weight.

no where near capable of comparing the two events

The towers fell because the impact had so much force that it was more then the tensile strength of the steel outer cage could withstand. When the
intense heat began to buckle the inner supporting straps from the exterior cage to the interior floor suspension grid the massive weight of the floors
collapsed in the suspension straps which resulted in the building falling inward.

No bombs no explosives, just a big fiery high impact plane crash that overcame the tensile strength of the steel grid construction.

An airplane crash caused a partial collapse of a building in Amsterdam in 1992:

The Bijlmerramp (in English: Bijlmer disaster) was an airplane crash. On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli
El Al airline crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmer neighbourhood (part of 'Amsterdam Zuidoost') of Amsterdam, the
capital of the Netherlands. A total of 43 people were killed, including the plane's crew of three and an unidentified "nonrevenue passenger". Many
more were injured.

The plane, a cargo jet belonging to the Israeli carrier El Al, departed at 18h10 from Schiphol airport for Tel Aviv. Above the Gooimeer, two of the
plane's engines broke off the right wing: A fuse pin on engine 3 sheared inappropriately due to corrosion, leaving the pod to tilt up and right due
to gyroscopic forces, knocking engine 4 off the wing too. A China Airlines 747-200F freighter was brought down by the same causes in December 1991.

The crew remained unaware of the extent of the damage, being unable to see the wing. After circling twice the plane returned to the airport and
attempted to land. During the approach the flaps were extended, which apparently rendered the plane uncontrollable. At 18h35 the heavily loaded plane
crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of
apartments. [emphasis mine]

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly
with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Also it is a much lighter a/c and the reports idnicate an emergency landing was being attempted which implies perhaps flaps and lowered gear were in
use, or at the very least, the a/c was slower than usual rather than running flat out as the planes that hit the WTC or Pentagon were.

The MTOW of a C-130H is 155,000 pounds with a full fuel load
The MTOW of a 757 is 255-272,000
The MTOW of a 767 is about 387,000

Originally posted by AgentSmith
That building also looks to be made of concrete and not steel.
So what you have is a building of different construction, different materials, of different size and hit by an aircraft at a much slower speed and not
head on.

Yo can't get much more different than that.

I think he's referring to building 7, which was not even remotely struck by an aircraft, regardless of the different materials, building 7 housed
Rudolph Giuliani’s fortified bunker, along with several CIA offices, and was a sound structure. Who cares what speed the plane hit the building in
Tehran? It's not relevant, as he was comparing it to building 7, which was not struck by an Aircraft.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
An airplane crash caused a partial collapse of a building in Amsterdam in 1992:

The Bijlmerramp (in English: Bijlmer disaster) was an airplane crash. On October 4, 1992, El Al Flight 1862, a Boeing 747 cargo plane of the Israeli
El Al airline crashed into the Groeneveen and Klein-Kruitberg flats in the Bijlmer neighbourhood (part of 'Amsterdam Zuidoost') of Amsterdam, the
capital of the Netherlands. A total of 43 people were killed, including the plane's crew of three and an unidentified "nonrevenue passenger". Many
more were injured.

The plane, a cargo jet belonging to the Israeli carrier El Al, departed at 18h10 from Schiphol airport for Tel Aviv. Above the Gooimeer, two of the
plane's engines broke off the right wing: A fuse pin on engine 3 sheared inappropriately due to corrosion, leaving the pod to tilt up and right due
to gyroscopic forces, knocking engine 4 off the wing too. A China Airlines 747-200F freighter was brought down by the same causes in December 1991.

The crew remained unaware of the extent of the damage, being unable to see the wing. After circling twice the plane returned to the airport and
attempted to land. During the approach the flaps were extended, which apparently rendered the plane uncontrollable. At 18h35 the heavily loaded plane
crashed into a row of high-rise apartments called Groeneveen. The building caught fire and partially collapsed, destroying dozens of
apartments. [emphasis mine]

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly
with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Looks like the wing sheered off and landed at the base of that apartment building!

The apartment does not appear to be as large as the WTC nor the Pentagon, so it seems reasonable that is any part of the wing did not impact directly
with the structure, it would be sheared off. The C-130 is a pretty robust design as well.

Looks like the wing sheered off and landed at the base of that apartment building!

Yeah, you are right. In this photograph you provided;

You can see clear damage at the bottom of the building, just above and to the left of the suspected wing fragment. So Something obviously hit the
building fairly hard.

Much lighter and slower approach to what? We are comparing this to building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft, but by some falling debree. Which
is going to hit hardest, an airbourne c-130, or a few falling pieces of steel?

FredT, looking at the pictures of this recent Tehran incident, and the Windsor building in Madrid (from earlier this year);

Which was completely engulfed in flames at one point, and burned for two days, but still did not collapse. Could I enquire how on earth building 7,
which was only subjected to moderate impacts by falling debree, and moderate fire, could be reduced to this;

in under 10 hours? What Was it made out of, Egg Cartons and Masking tape, or something?

Originally posted by MERC
Much lighter and slower approach to what? We are comparing this to building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft, but by some falling debree. Which
is going to hit hardest, an airbourne c-130, or a few falling pieces of steel?

Depends on alot of factors. A few pieces of steel beams can weigh quite alot and spread thier impact over a very small surface area when impacting a
surface. The impact can also have a tremendous impact depending an the angle and amount of shear force that is generated by that angle velocity. It
depends on the construction of the building and the materials used. etc etc etc.

In otherwords almost every building is different and comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges

This building was much different than the WTC, having a much higher footprint to height ratio. The Pentagon sufferred a partial collapse too, quite
similar to the damage this plane did in the Netherlands.

The main point being the WTC complex was so unique in its height and engineering design, you can't compare it to a run-of-the-mill building.

Depends on alot of factors. A few pieces of steel beams can weigh quite alot and spread thier impact over a very small surface area when impacting a
surface. The impact can also have a tremendous impact depending an the angle and amount of shear force that is generated by that angle velocity. It
depends on the construction of the building and the materials used. etc etc etc.

In otherwords almost every building is different and comparing one to the other is like apples and oranges

Ahh, right, unless it supports your side of the story, that is?

Originally posted by FredT
However, the C-130 in question is lighter and believed to be travaling at a much much slower rate of approach.

Haha.

Anyway, nobody is using these examples as the absolute gospel as to why the Towers shouldn't have fallen, but they do go a long way to raising a lot
more legitimate questions about building 7 falling the way it did, and perhaps even the twin Towers themselves, and you know it.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.